REBUTTAL BY* Note for any Federal workers among our readership: Harsh reference towards government workers should not be taken personally. It is the positions we view as “useless,” not the people holding them. We can’t really fault someone for accepting a job with the Feds.
I don’t know about “youse guys,” but other than the furloughed Federal parasites (probably 90% of them Demonrats), has anyone actually noticed any of these oh-so-horrible effects of the partial (15%) “government shutdown” ™ caused by Demonrat refusal to fund Trump’s border wall?
From the article:
“The partial government shutdown is inflicting far greater damage on the United States economy than previously estimated … The revised estimates from the Council of Economic Advisers show that the shutdown, now in its fourth week, is beginning to have real economic consequences. The analysis, and other projections from outside the White House, suggests that the shutdown has already weighed significantly on growth.”Only in the upside-down insular world of Keynesian / Marxist economic theory — which holds that all prosperity and all human advancement flow from government manipulation and bureaucratic interference — are the layoffs of 800,000 generally well-payed useless eaters considered a “threat” to the national economy. That’s like claiming that the removal of 800,000 blood-sucking ticks from the butt-hole of a sick racehorse will weaken the creature and make him run slower. 1. The British sodomite John Maynard Keynes is the founding father of the anti-market, pro-big government manipulation economics which has infested the business schools of America and Europe. Keynes’ groupies believe that government spending creates prosperity. // 2. Some of the useless eaters of America’s bloated bureaucracy believe that they are entitled to cushy, lay-off-free jobs with automatic payraises for life. // 3. 800,000 blood-sucking ticks digging into a horse’s ass. Who needs em? The piece goes on and on in a pathetic attempt to induce reader tears for the useless eaters of the Departments of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation. Weep not for these engorged Marxist mosquitoes, boys and girls — for if history serves correctly as any indicative precedent, they will all receive full back-pay when they do return to “work” (rolling eyes). The “government shutdown” ™ is actually a paid vacation for them. Nice “work” if you can get it, eh?
Apart from the fact that no economic harm will come to the 800,000 ticks and fleas, may we ask: “What is so bloody damn sacrosanct about a position with the Federal government?” Why no tears from Sulzberger’s sleazy scribblers for those of us here in the private sector (the racehorse which supports the parasites) for whom job losses due to firings, downsizing, environmental regulations and outsourced / off-shored work are standard elements of the vicissitudes(a $10 word for ups-and-downs)of life? Most hard-working private sector workers in America have, at one time or another, been laid off and stood on unemployment lines.* But this guy can’t ever be touched?*This idiotic claim about the “threat” to the overall economy (due to less government spending) is “supported” by the various pseudo-economists quoted in the article. It represents a textbook example of what the 19th Century French free-market economist, Frederic Bastiat described as, “The Broken Window Fallacy.”From the Slimes article (citing “economist,” Ian Sheperdson):“If the shutdown continues through the end of March, Mr. Shepherdson said in a research note, he would expect the economy to shrink in the first quarter. While federal workers are likely to receive back pay once the furlough ends, most government contractors will not, and the longer spending is depressed, the higher the risk that the businesses they run or patronize will fail, Mr. Shepherdson said.” (emphasis added) Forget about ever re-educating the dogmatic econo-eggheads of Academia about basic macro-economics.But methinks “youse guys” would surely appreciate the simple logic behind Bastiat’s“Parable of the Broken Window” (From “That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen”). It’s a timeless classic — very short and sweet too. Here it is: “Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers (glass cutters / installers) if panes of glass were never broken?”Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.” The lesson is this: Money taken from taxpayers to inject into one sector of the economy deprives another sector of the economy of that same investment. And if the “public” expenditure does not add to the net wealth (GDP), society is actually poorer because of the transfer scheme.
Bastiat’s clear, concise and passionate writings (The Law, Economic Sophisms, The Man and the Statesman), were penned at a time when more and more French “intellectuals” were becoming smitten with Marxist-style foolishness. His books are essential and understandable reading for free-market / sound currency liberty lovers. It’s a damn shame that most of today’s economics majors will never be exposed to Bastiat. Frederic Bastiat1801-1850 Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today that Trump’s shutdown of the government is threatening economic growth.Boobus Americanus 2: Of course. All those people not getting paid will have a ripple effect. St. Sugar: I jusst ran into St. Basstiat the other day. He ssigned hiss book for me! Editor: Another brilliant man buried by Fake History and Fake Economics.*COMMENTS / FEEDBACK / INSULTS / KUDOS Email address:Comments: |
